Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday February 01 2020, @03:40AM   Printer-friendly
from the It-seems-the-only-sure-way-to-avoid-getting-the-virus-is-to-give-up-breathing. dept.

Multiple Soylentils have submitted stories regarding the 2019-nCoV coronavirus which is believed to have originated in the city of Wuhan, China in December 2019. Rather than have a smattering of stories appear on the site, they have been gathered here in one story. Read on if you are interested; otherwise another story will be along presently.

How Does Coronavirus Spread and How Can You Protect Yourself?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/coronavirus-spread-protect-200130115539072.html:

The 2019-nCoV coronavirus spreads from person to person in close proximity, similarly to other respiratory illnesses, such as the flu.

The disease can be transmitted through sneezing or coughing, which disperses droplets of body fluids such as saliva or mucus.

According to scientists, coughs and sneezes can travel several feet and stay suspended in the air for up to 10 minutes.

These droplets can come into direct contact with other people, or can infect those who pick them up by touching surfaces on which the infected droplets land, or touching a surface and then their face.

It is not yet know how long the virus can survive on surfaces, but in other viruses the range is between a few hours or months.

Transmission is of particular concern on transport, where droplets containing the coronavirus could pass between passengers or via surfaces like plane seats and armrests.

The incubation period of the coronavirus, the length of time before symptoms appear, is between one and 14 days.

Though not yet confirmed, Chinese health authorities believe the virus can be transmitted before symptoms appear.

This would have major implications for containment measures, according to Gerard Krause, head of the Department for Epidemiology at the Helmholtz Centre for Infection.

"It's unusual for respiratory diseases transmissible even before the first symptoms have occurred," he told Al Jazeera.

"But the consequences is that if it happens then they have no public health means sort out or to identify people at risk of transmitting, because they don't even know that they're ill yet."

[...] In terms of self protection and containing the virus, experts agree that is important to wash hands thoroughly with soap; cover your face when coughing or sneezing; visit a doctor if you have symptoms and avoid direct contact with live animals in affected areas.

While face masks are popular, scientists doubt their effectiveness against airborne viruses.

They may provide some protection to you and others, but they are loose and made of permeable material, meaning droplets can still pass through.

Some countries, such as the UK and Nigeria, have advised people travelling back from China to self-quarantine for at least two weeks.

China coronavirus: Beijing confirms use of anti-HIV drugs at some hospitals

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3047667/china-coronavirus-beijing-confirms-use-anti-hiv-drugs-some

Beijing's government announced on Sunday that some of the city's hospitals are giving patients infected with the Wuhan coronavirus medication used to treat HIV, part of efforts to stop the spread of the deadly illness.

"Online rumors say that an anti-Aids drug has been used and proved to be effective in treating the coronavirus," according to a statement by Beijing Municipal Health Commission. "The National Health Commission has recommended the rumored names to treat the coronavirus before and we have Lopinavir/Ritonavir in stock in Beijing,"

Three Beijing hospitals designated to treat confirmed coronavirus cases – Beijing Ditan Hospital, Beijing Youan Hospital, and No 5 Medical Center of PLA General Hospital – have begun using this therapy for treatment, the statement added.

The two drugs are antiretrovirals, which block the ability of HIV to bind with healthy cells and reproduce, and are often used in combination to treat the illness.

Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1

Abstract:

We are currently witnessing a major epidemic caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019- nCoV). The evolution of 2019-nCoV remains elusive. We found 4 insertions in the spike glycoprotein (S) which are unique to the 2019-nCoV and are not present in other coronaviruses. Importantly, amino acid residues in all the 4 inserts have identity or similarity to those in the HIV- 1 gp120 or HIV-1 Gag. Interestingly, despite the inserts being discontinuous on the primary amino acid sequence, 3D-modelling of the 2019-nCoV suggests that they converge to constitute the receptor binding site. The finding of 4 unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV, all of which have identity /similarity to amino acid residues in key structural proteins of HIV-1 is unlikely to be fortuitous in nature. This work provides yet unknown insights on 2019-nCoV and sheds light on the evolution and pathogenicity of this virus with important implications for diagnosis of this virus.

Copyright:
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.

A preprint of the entire journal article is available as a pdf.

Previously:
Coronavirus Declared a Global Health Emergency by World Health Organization
Plague Inc. Maker: Don't use our Game for Coronavirus Modeling
In The Pipeline: Coronavirus
China Battles Coronavirus Outbreak: All the Latest Updates
Coronavirus: Millions Quarantined in Wuhan City
China Confirms Human-To-Human Transmission of New Coronavirus; CDC Confirms First US Case
China Reports 3rd Death, Nearly 140 New Cases of Coronavirus
Thailand Quarantines 32 Due to MERS Case
Coronavirus Breakthrough: Protein Mutation Affects Spread and Virulence of Respiratory Virus


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2Original Submission #3

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 02 2020, @12:53AM (6 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 02 2020, @12:53AM (#952570) Journal
    So you don't know enough to be having this conversation? Then why are you still here? At this point, there's no evidence to support anything other than a natural source. Your doubts are irrelevant to me. Show evidence not these silly games.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @01:58AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @01:58AM (#952591)

    I'm not really defending the source. I'm just pointing out that you haven't really done a good job refuting it.

    "At this point, there's no evidence to support anything other than a natural source."

    The source claims to have evidence. You haven't really provided an argument otherwise. Not saying there isn't a good argument, I actually don't really hold an opinion either way (am slightly leaning towards your viewpoints just not for the arguments you make because you don't really seem to know enough about the subject to actually make a good argument and I don't have the time to spend to read more on it and draw an opinion and make an argument. You, OTOH, have made up your mind without even knowing enough about the subject to make a coherent argument. Though I do have a fair amount of educational background in Biology I'm no expert but it doesn't take an expert to see how ignorant you are), just pointing out that you haven't done anything to support your side or refute the other. The only thing you have done is been disrespectful and shown how ignorant you are.

    "Your doubts are irrelevant to me."

    You say that as if your opinion is the only one that matters.

    Your opinion is irrelevant to me. Especially given your apparent ignorance on the immune system and virology in general.

    Regardless, I think my point is that you can be a little more respectful and tolerant of other opinions. You can respectfully present your argument and accept feedback and respond and read more on the subject and perhaps you might learn something instead of calling people dumb and derailing the conversation all while showing how ignorant you in fact are to those that actually know better. I'm not saying I know everything, I know there are people that know way more than me on this subject (not you for sure), just that you can be mindful that your opinion is not the only one that counts.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 02 2020, @02:37AM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 02 2020, @02:37AM (#952604) Journal

      I'm not really defending the source. I'm just pointing out that you haven't really done a good job refuting it.

      Actually you are defending that source. This whole exercise is about attracting eyeballs to that website. Notice that not once have you actually described what's at the "source" or quote from it, etc. A sincere person would defend this idea in their own words not keep saying "the source".

      Here's my take on why. Actually revealing what's at that link would would invite informed debate which would quickly pop that balloon and scare off the marks. But as long as you keep your scammy website shrouded in an air of mystery, the marks can go there. Then there's no smart and/or knowledgeable people to distract them from whatever brainwashing and fleecing you have in mind.

      Sorry, I don't take you seriously because you aren't discussing this in good faith.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @03:15AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @03:15AM (#952621)

        "This whole exercise is about attracting eyeballs to that website. "

        Attracting eyeballs to a website is very different than defending it. There is a difference between discussing and entertaining an idea you either disagree with or don't have a strong opinion on and defending it. To claim otherwise is a rather extreme viewpoint and I find those that are intolerant of any opinions they disagree with from even being discussed to be more extreme than the alleged extremists they claim to criticize.

        "A sincere person would defend this idea in their own words not keep saying "the source"."

        Who are you to define what a sincere person would do.

        "Actually revealing what's at that link would would invite informed debate which would quickly pop that balloon and scare off the marks."

        Others have quoted the website (and no, I didn't click it but I read what was posted here) and you haven't really done a good job responding. and if you think revealing what's at the link would invite informed debate and pop that balloon, as you say, why don't you make the effort to do so. Enlighten us. Because if you want to make a claim you are the one that holds the burden to support it (not me).

        "But as long as you keep your scammy website shrouded in an air of mystery"

        So why don't you be the one to enlighten us and remove that mystery.

        "Then there's no smart and/or knowledgeable people to distract them from whatever brainwashing and fleecing you have in mind."

        Yes, because presenting a viewpoint you disagree with is brainwashing right (again, I'm not supporting the view, I'm saying that if you want to discuss it then discuss it. Don't resort to rhetoric to derail those that you disagree with without actually providing any substance to your argument).

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 02 2020, @03:31AM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 02 2020, @03:31AM (#952624) Journal

          Attracting eyeballs to a website is very different than defending it.

          Not at all. That's the only defense that matters.

          "A sincere person would defend this idea in their own words not keep saying "the source"." Who are you to define what a sincere person would do.

          I've seen these games before. It's behavior not definitions that matter here. At least, you're not linking to YouTube videos.

          Others have quoted the website (and no, I didn't click it but I read what was posted here) and you haven't really done a good job responding. and if you think revealing what's at the link would invite informed debate and pop that balloon, as you say, why don't you make the effort to do so. Enlighten us. Because if you want to make a claim you are the one that holds the burden to support it (not me).

          Who are you to define what a good job responding is?

          You had plenty of time to describe what your site was, and what the argument was. You didn't. You instead kept playing these games. At this point, no, I'm not going to waste time with your link. I already know it's garbage just from what other people have mentioned. And your failure to do anything other than the dance of the seven veils indicates that there's nothing to it.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @03:53AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 02 2020, @03:53AM (#952628)

            Again, not my website, not my argument. I never said I agree with the website.

            "Who are you to define what a good job responding is? "

            I explained my reasoning (see the difference. My arguments have reasoning and show that I actually understand biology at least somewhat unlike you). I'll let the readers decide.

            "At least, you're not linking to YouTube videos."

            This is not even an argument (well, you haven't provided any arguments really). Youtube is like any other content platform. It has good information and it has bad information. It's up to the reader/viewer to be discerning.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 02 2020, @06:00AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 02 2020, @06:00AM (#952646) Journal

              Again, not my website, not my argument. I never said I agree with the website.

              Why would you say that it was your website? As an AC, you can pretend to be anybody, including the intrigued bystander who doesn't "agree" with the site nor bother to state why it's supposed to be worth reading, yet boosts it as hard as they can.

              I explained my reasoning (see the difference. My arguments have reasoning and show that I actually understand biology at least somewhat unlike you). I'll let the readers decide.

              And I explained mine, including the tells to look for. I see, for example, that you still have yet to discuss the contents of your website. Funny how you can spend so many posts (and maybe some of the other AC posts are your sockpuppets too) attacking other people yet can't be bothered to spend one post explaining what's supposed to be so good about that link you keep selling hard. That alone tells me it's crap. No one has to market a good read that hard.

              This is not even an argument (well, you haven't provided any arguments really). Youtube is like any other content platform. It has good information and it has bad information. It's up to the reader/viewer to be discerning.

              Good information? I grow faint at this heady flood of good information.